Dismissed

Ramanujam Raghunathan v. India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT24 Apr 2024SA/364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by borrowers challenging a lender's sale notice. The court found the borrowers failed to prove any violation of procedural requirements or NPA classification errors.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice dated 29.11.2022 issued against the schedule property is confirmed and the application is dismissed.

Ramanujam Raghunathan versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL} -^II AT HYDERABAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE^{24TH DAY OF APRIL,2024}

¶4

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE,B.Com., L'LB' (Hons'),M'A'} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SECURITISATION^{APPLICATIONNo. 364 OF 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

RamanujamRaghunathan S/o Rag^{h u nathan Sreen ivasa n} Age: 45 Years, Occ:^Business H. No. 1-57/GP/205 Gayathri Plaza,^{HotelsPearls Inn} Madinaguda, MiYaPur Hyderabad, T.S. 500049.

¶8

Subhasri Rangarajan W/o Rama nuia m Raghunathan Age: 42^years, Occ:^Business H. No. 1-57/GP/205

¶9

Gayathri Plaza, Hotels^{Pearls Inn} Madinaguda, MiYaPur Hyderabad, T.S. 500049,

¶10

.. . ... .Applicants.

¶11

Versus

¶12

M/s. Indiabulls Housing Finance^Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Officer Crown Court, 3'd Floor, D.No.74 &⁷⁵ Vinayak Nagar, Gachibowli Main Road Hyderabad, Telangana - 500032.

¶13

M/s, Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Officer H. No. 448-451, Udyog, Phase-V Gurgaon- 122016. fu*

¶14

sa.364/2022

¶15

Also at: Registered OFfice M-62 & 63, First Floor Connaught Place New Delhi - 110 001. ....Respondents. Counsel for the Applicants Ms. Chalasani Deepthi. Cou nsel for Respondents Mr. Rusheek Reddy KV.

¶16

-:9-B-pE8:-

¶17

The Applicants filed the^present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financlal^Assetsand Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002^{(hereinafterreferred} to as "SARFAESI Act 2002") assailing the action of^1st Respondents company in issuing sale notlce dated^29.71.2022 to sell the schedule^{property through auction on 09.01.2023.}

¶18

The case of the applicants as^per the^{avermentsin the SA, in} brief, is that the applicants^{availed houslngloan from} respondents company for^purchase of^{SA schedulepropertyin} December, 2016. The loan was^{to be paid in 292 monthly} instalments starting from^{10 03.2017 till10.06.2021'} Applicants have been^{regularin payment of EMIS till october,} 2019. Appllcants^{could not depositthe El'4Is on time firstlyin} November, 2019 and^{thereafter during Covid'19 period, July,} ZOz7, Aptil 2022^{to November, 2022 due to ill health of 1st}

¶19

Applicant.^{However,the outstandingEMIS were made good} subsequentty.^{Respondentscompanydid not take lnto account} the deposits^{made into their new accountRespondents took the} possession of the schedule^{property on 23} 'Ll'2022^aftet ,(h,t'.', / f "{'n'n ''\

¶20

|-,,

¶21

sA. 354 | 2022

¶22

obtaining^{warrant for} appointment^{of Advocate Commissioner in} Crl. M.^P. No.486/2022. The Respondents^{failed to servedemand} notice under^section 13(2) of the SARFAESI^{Act. Hence the} Notice is bad^{and againstthe principles of} impugned Rule⁸⁽⁶⁾ natural^justice.

¶23

The Respondents^{filed reply statement' The case of the} Respondents, in brief,^{is that the Applicants have been} constantly defaulting^{in paymentof EMIS leading classifying the} loan account as^{NPA, followedby recoveryproceedings under} the provisions of^{the SARFAESIAct'Respondentsissued} demand notice dated^{28.10.2021 demandingthe outstanding} dues. The demand^{notice has been sent to the Applicants by} Courier Service.^{The Demand Noticehas been publishedin} English and Telugu^{Dailies. Photostat copies of Courier receipts} and publication in news^{papers are annexed to the Reply} Statement vide material^{papers at pages 26 to 33' Withno} payment coming forward, Respondent^{issuedPossessionNotice} u/s 13(4) of the^{SARFAESiAct dated 07.03.2022'The} Possession Notice has been^{servedthrough Blue Dart Courier} besides affixture on secured^{asset and publishing in two} newspapers,^photostat copies^{of which are filed along with Reply} Statement vide^page Nos. 37 to 47.^{Thereafter,Respondents} obtalned Warrant for appointment of^{AdvocateCommissioner} u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act. As the Applicants did^{not choose to} clear the outstanding dues, Respondents issued the^impugned Rule 8(6) Notice fixing the auction date as 09.01.2023 after obtaining Valuation Certificate from a certified valuer. The Notice of Sale u/r 8(6) has b!:en duly served upon the 7$"'"

¶24

sA.36412022

¶25

Applicants, affixed on the secured asset and^published in^two leading newspapers on 06.12.2022. Photocopies of^{Rule 8(6)} Notice, its service and^publication are^placed at^{page Nos. 44 to} 61 of the list of documents^filed on^{04.01.2023 and its affixture} vide page No.57 of the material^papers filed with the^Reply Statement. The Applicants took^{frivolous grounds to coverup} their shortfalls in^paying the EMIs on time.^{Applicants have not} produced any medical examination reports of 1st Applicant's hospitalisation. Applicants have never^{approachedthe} Respondent Company for change of account^{for the purpose of} deposit of EMIs. It is denied that the^{Respondents havenot} taken into account the deposits.^{Having admittedof defaultin} payment of EMIs, Applicants are not entitled to any^reliefas sought for in the SA.

¶26

Heard learned counsel^{appearingfor both the parties' Perused} the written arguments^{filed by the applicantand the material} brought on record'

¶27

While reiterating^{the SA averments, learned counsel for the} Applicants submitted^{that had the Respondent Companytaken} into account the^{payments of Rs.34,43} U-^{and t7 ,6751- madeon} Ol.OT.2O2L,classificationofloanaccountasNPAwithinT2days' i.e., 20.10.2021^{would have beenavoided'}

¶28

Now the^{pointsthat arise for adjudicationare: -} i) ll'hether the APPlicant^{made out} any valid^ground for^quashingthe Rule 8(6) Notice^{issued againstthe} SA schedule ProPerlY^underlhe provisions of^{Securitisation Act?}

sA.364/2022

To what relieJ?

Point No.(i):

One of the main grievances of the Applicants is concerned with the deposits made on 01.07.2021. I have gone through the statement of account filed by the Respondent. It is noticed that though the transaction date in respect of credit entry^pertaining to Rs.17,675l- was shown as 28.07.2023, the value date has been taken into account as 01.07.2021 with no^penal interest or any other charges. Applicants acknowledged receipt of latest Statement of Account filed by the Respondent. From the^perusal of the Statement of Account filed on t9.02.2024, it is evident all the cheques presented between L0.07.202L to 11.01.2022 were bounced. There were several instances of default prior to July 2021 and post October 2021. Hence, it cannot be said that the lone entry of deposit of Rs.17,675l- would have saved the loan account from becoming as NPA. Applicants, vide^para 10 of the written arguments filed on L8.03.2024, admitted affixture of Possesslon Notice dated 31.L0.2022 and Auction Sale Notice on 08.12.2022. In addition to this, Applicants have not disputed the documents relating to demand notice and possession notice, Notice Prior to Sale, their service, affixture and publication filed with the Reply Statement.

¶35

B. Admittedly, Applicants committed default on more than one occasion. Applicants also admitted of depositing bunch of outstanding EMIS on more than one occasion and that they suffered losses in their business during Covid.19 lockdown, resulting default in payment of EMIs. Therefore, it is an /W'""

¶36

sA.36412022

¶37

admitted fact that^{there were delays in paymentof EMIson one} account or the^{other. Applicantsfailed to establish that there} was any flaw on^{the part of the Respondent either in} classification^{of account as NPA or compliance of sections 13(2),} 13(4), Rules 8(1),^{B(2) and Rule 8(6).}

¶38

Inviewofabovediscussion,Ifindthattheapplicantsfailedto make out any^{validground to set aside the Sale Noticedated} 29.11.2022 issued^{against the SA scheduleproperty'} Accordingly, the^{SA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶39

Point No.(ii):

¶40

In the result,^{SA fails and is hereby dismissed'}

¶41

Consequently,^{InterlocutoryApplicationspending if any, shall} stand closed.^{No order as to costs.}

¶42

12, Communicate a^{copy of this order to the parties concernedand} upload in^{Web Portal'} tiiriot"a^{b the steno,signedond pronounced byme in the open courton this the24th} doy of April,^2024).

¶43

K"odn

¶44

SHWAR^KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ramanujam Raghunathan v. India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanujam Raghunathan v. India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yes Bank versus Dipak

P M Creation and Others versus Axis Bank

Gopinath Craetion Others versus Indian Bank

Anamika Pritesh Patel through Her Power of Attorney Holder Dr Harish Sanabhai Patel versus Punjab National Bank

Central Bank of India versus Ms Omkar Food Products

Canara Bank versus Smt. Navjeet Kaur